`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Date: Feb. 6, 2020
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Before: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`
`
` Case No. 5:13-cv-01356-EJD
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Date: Feb. 6, 2020
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Before: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
` 
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`EMC CORPORATION and VMWARE, INC., 
`
` Defendants.
`
` Case No. 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Date: Feb. 6, 2020
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Before: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II. 
`
`III.
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`The Asserted “True Name” Patents .................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Procedural History ............................................................................................ 5 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................. 7 
`A. 
`Judgment on the Pleadings ................................................................................ 7 
`B. 
`Patent Eligibility Under Section 101 ................................................................ 8 
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`The ’310 Patent ............................................................................................... 10 
`The Asserted Claims of the ’310 Patent Fail Alice Step
`1. 
`One Because They Are Directed to an Abstract Idea. ........................ 11 
`The Asserted Claims of the ’310 Patent Lack Any
`“Inventive Concept” as Required Under Alice Step Two. .................. 14 
`The ’280 Patent ............................................................................................... 18 
`B. 
`The ’662 Patent ............................................................................................... 22 
`C. 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 24 
`
`
`2. 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................21
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Digital Island, Inc.,
`No. 1:00-cv-11851-RWZ (D. Mass.) ..........................................................................................4
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ...................................................................................................... passim
`Altnet Inc. v. RIAA,
`No. 2:04-cv-07456-JFW-CT (C.D. Cal.) ....................................................................................4
`Altnet Inc. v. Streamcast Networks Inc.,
`No. 2:06-cv-05086-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.) .....................................................................................4
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................8
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`No. 15-CV-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ....................................16
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ............................................................................................................15, 17
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`319 F. Supp. 3d 818 (E.D. Va. 2018) ........................................................................................12
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................9
`Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.,
`No. 1:02-cv-11430-RWZ (D. Mass.) ..........................................................................................4
`Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Avi Networks, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-1843-LPS, 2019 WL 582480 (D. Del. 2019) .....................................................20, 21
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................8, 17
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................13, 19
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................18
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................9
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ......................................................................................................................8
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`ii
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
`189 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................................7
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................15, 18
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`200 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D. Pa. 2016) .....................................................................15, 17, 21, 24
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................13, 19
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................8, 13
`Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-CV-2281-K, 2015 WL 2165931 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015) ................................. 13-14
`Kinetech, Inc. v. The Lime Grp., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-06161-VBF-PLA (C.D. Cal.)..................................................................................4
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ..................................................................................................................8, 9
`Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`921 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................7
`Nichia Corp. v. Vizio, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00545-SJO, 2017 WL 3485767 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017) .......................................16
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01622-HSG, 2015 WL 1535328 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) ....................................12
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD, 2016 WL 344845 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016).................................3, 14
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................................6
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`917 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................6, 7, 16
`In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, & Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC, Patent Litig.,
`MDL No. 2834, 340 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Litig. 2018) .................................4
`Preservation Wellness Techs. LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions,
`No. 2:15-CV-1559-WCB, 2016 WL 2742379 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2016) ...............................13
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`696 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................2, 13
`Protegrity USA, Inc. v. Netskope, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-02515-YGR, 2015 WL 6126599 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) .............................. 12-13
`RecogniCorp LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................9
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 2-3, 12, 13
`Smart Sys. Innovations v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................... 9, 14-15, 21, 24
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................18
`In re TLI Commc’ns, LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................................17
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................................9, 15
`Umbanet, Inc. v. Epsilon Data Mgmt., LLC,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ................................................................................13, 17
`Ventress v. Japan Airlines,
`486 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................................................5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................................................5
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................................................7
`FEDERAL RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ....................................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
`that on February 6, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 4 of this Court located at 280 South 1st Street,
`San Jose, CA 95113, before the Honorable Edward J. Davila, Defendants EMC Corporation
`(“EMC”), VMware, Inc. (“VMware”), Facebook Inc. (“Facebook”), and Google LLC (“Google”)1
`(collectively, “Defendants”) shall and hereby do move for an order entering judgment on the
`pleadings. This Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
`the Declaration of Marissa A. Lalli, and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or
`before the time this motion is taken under submission by the Court. Plaintiffs PersonalWeb
`Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) and Level 3 Communications, LLC (“Level 3”) (collectively,
`“Plaintiffs”) oppose this motion.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants request that this
`Court enter judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ allegations of patent infringement because the
`asserted claims are drawn to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Section 101”).
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Abstract ideas with no inventive concept are not eligible for patent protection under Section
`101, and any patent claiming such subject matter is invalid as a matter of law. Alice Corp. v. CLS
`Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 (“the
`’310 patent”), No. 6,415,280 (“the ’280 patent”), and No. 7,949,662 (“the ’662 patent”) (together,
`“the True Name patents”) cover precisely such abstract ideas.
`Specifically, the True Name patents focus on the idea of using content-based identifiers to
`manage data in a computer system. In the asserted claims of the ’310 patent, this content-based
`identifier is used to control access to a file or other data item. In the asserted claims of the ’280
`
`I.
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs had also accused YouTube, LLC of patent infringement; however, those allegations have
`been dropped, leaving Google LLC as the only defendant in Case No. 5:13-cv-01317-EJD.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`patent, the identifier is used to request files that are distributed across a network. And in the asserted
`claim of the ’662 patent, the identifier is used to mark files for deletion.
`There is nothing new about these basic ideas. Libraries have long used catalog systems built
`around the idea of a unique, content-based identifier2 assigned to each book—making it easier to
`identify, manage, and control access to materials in their collections. Patrons can request items using
`those identifiers in the library catalog, and the library can control access to those items based on the
`same identifiers. For example, patrons with a valid library card may borrow a modern copy of The
`Odyssey, but only those with special rights may access an antique printing housed in a library’s rare-
`books collection. Librarians may also use their catalogs to identify duplicate books to remove from
`their collections. This idea of using unique identifiers—including identifiers based on the contents of
`the material—to request, control access to, and delete information is at the core of the claims of the
`asserted True Name patents.
`These abstract ideas, as they appear in the patents, are not patent eligible; they merely
`represent generic applications of known concepts. And these ideas do not become patent eligible
`because the identifiers are created from the file contents using hashing technology (long known in the
`art), much less because they are implemented using generic computer technology. Nothing in the
`asserted claims adds an inventive concept to these abstract ideas. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
`As the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
`v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)) (internal quotation mark omitted). In fact,
`multiple courts have already addressed whether abstract ideas similar to those claimed here are
`patentable. The answer, every time, has been “no.” For example, the Federal Circuit has confirmed
`that the abstract ideas of “providing restricted access to resources,” Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile
`USA, Inc., 696 F. App’x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and “conditioning and controlling access to
`
`
`2 A “content-based identifier” is simply an identifier that is based on the content of the information
`identified. For example, libraries use call numbers—such as those in the Dewey Decimal
`Classification and Library of Congress Classification systems—to assign each item a unique
`identifier based on its subject matter and other identifying information. These call numbers are
`similar to the “content-based identifiers” recited in the True Name patents and will change as the
`content changes (e.g., when a new edition of the book is released).
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`data,” Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 680 F. App’x 977, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2017), are not patentable. And
`this Court has found that “[t]he practice of controlling access to information by verifying credentials
`(via well-known encryption methods) is neither novel nor specific to” certain applications. OpenTV,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD, 2016 WL 344845, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016).
`Accordingly, the Court should invalidate the asserted claims of the True Name patents under Section
`101 and dismiss Plaintiffs’ infringement claims with respect to these patents.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`The Asserted “True Name” Patents
`The three asserted patents are part of a larger family of patents that Plaintiffs call the “True
`Name” patents. The True Name patents all share the same specification and all focus on the use of
`“substantially unique” content-based identifiers to perform basic functions. ’310 patent at 3:30-4:59.3
`The True Name patents claim priority to abandoned U.S. patent application No. 08/425,160, filed on
`April 11, 1995—long before the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice. See, e.g., id. at (60).
`In the background section of the patents, the inventors claimed that prior art systems
`identified files or other data items based on their location or address within a data system (for
`example, a file’s location in a file directory as set forth in a path such as C:\DOCS\LETTER.TXT).
`According to the inventors, this meant that “there is no direct relationship between the data names
`and the data item.” ’310 patent at 2:39-40. Identical data files could thus have different names,
`leading the system to store unnecessary duplicate copies. Id. at 3:4-9.
`The True Name patents purported to solve these problems by creating unique, content-based
`identifiers for the data items to be managed, generated by applying a “hash function” (i.e., a
`mathematical algorithm) to the data in each particular data item. See, e.g., ’310 patent at 3:50-4:59
`(Summary of the Invention); id. at 12:21-26; id. at Abstract; id. at 40:7-14 (claim 24). The patents
`refer to the claimed identifiers as “True Names.” Id. at 6:20-24. The hash functions described in the
`patents—which were well known in the prior art—reduce the contents of the data item to “a
`relatively small, fixed size identifier,” so that the identifier is “virtually guaranteed to represent the
`
`
`3 For convenience, this summary cites to the specification of the ’310 patent. Identical disclosures
`appear in both the ’280 and ’662 patents.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`
`data [item] and only [the] data [item].” Id. at 12:21-26. As a result, identical data items will have the
`same identifier, while different data items will likely (although not certainly) have different
`identifiers. Id. As the Patent Office has since confirmed, multiple times over, using hash functions to
`generate content-based identifiers was actually long known in the art. See infra Sections II.B and
`IV.A.2, pp. 5-6, 16.
`The asserted patents acknowledge that these True Names are intended for use with “existing”
`operating systems and “standard” data-management processes. ’310 patent at 6:25-32. In the
`asserted claims of the ’310 patent, the identifiers are used to determine if access to a data item is
`licensed or authorized. See, e.g., id., claims 24, 81, 86. In the asserted claims of the ’280 patent, they
`are used to request files that are distributed across a network. See, e.g., ’280 patent, claims 15, 31.
`And in the asserted claims of the ’662 patent, they are used to de-duplicate files. See, e.g., ’662
`patent, claim 33. The specification also describes using the identifiers for locating data items (’310
`patent at 3:59-62), accessing data items (id. at 4:10-12), performing backups (id. at 35:13-25),
`restoring data items that have been lost or destroyed (id. at 35:20-22), eliminating duplicate data
`items (id. at 27:20-23), and checking whether a particular data item is already in the system before
`uploading another copy (id. at 14:1-11). All of these tasks are run-of-the-mill data-management
`features using content-based identifiers in place of other identifiers.4
`
`
`4 Because of the breadth of the True Name patents, Plaintiffs and prior owners have asserted them
`against numerous defendants in a variety of industries. First, from 2000-2003, prior owners to the
`True Name Patents targeted Akamai, a content delivery network. Akamai Techs., Inc. et al. v. Digital
`Island, Inc. et al., No. 1:00-cv-11851-RWZ (D. Mass.); Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc. et al.
`v. Akamai Techs., Inc., No. 1:02-cv-11430-RWZ (D. Mass.). Then, from 2004-2007, prior owners
`targeted entities involved with music file-sharing technologies, including the Recording Industry
`Association of America (“RIAA”), Streamcast, and LimeWire. See Altnet Inc. et al. v. RIAA et al.,
`No. 2:04-cv-07456-JFW-CT (C.D. Cal.); Altnet Inc. et al. v. Streamcast Networks Inc., et al., No.
`2:06-cv-05086-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.); Kinetech, Inc. et al. v. The Lime Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:07-cv-
`06161-VBF-PLA (C.D. Cal.). Then, after acquiring the patents in 2011, Plaintiffs leveled
`infringement accusations at storage and cloud-computing companies, including the Defendants here
`and Autonomy/HP, Caringo, Dropbox, NEC, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Most recently,
`Plaintiffs sued several dozen companies based on their use of Amazon’s cloud-computing
`technology. See In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, & Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC, Patent Litig., MDL No.
`2834, 340 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Litig. 2018).
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`B.
`Procedural History
`In late 2013, after Plaintiffs filed each of the instant cases in the Eastern District of Texas,
`EMC and VMware filed a series of petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”), challenging all claims that had been asserted against them for six of the
`True Name patents, including the ’280 and ’662 patents, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The
`PTAB subsequently invalidated all challenged claims of all six patents. See Joint Status Report,
`PersonalWeb v. EMC, ECF No. 61 (June 24, 2019). The IPR proceedings and related Federal Circuit
`appeal confirmed—indisputably—that the idea of using a content-based identifier for data-
`management purposes was not novel or inventive. See Ex. A5 (Final Written Decision for U.S. Patent
`No. 5,978,791) (invalidating claims to use of content-based identifier for identifying and accessing
`data items); Ex. B (’280 Final Written Decision) (invalidating claims to use of content-based
`identifier for requesting files distributed across a network); Ex. C (’662 Final Written Decision)
`(invalidating claim to use of content-based identifier to record deletion of files); Ex. D (Final Written
`Decision for U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539) (invalidating claims to use of content-based identifier for
`accessing different portions of files); Ex. E (Final Written Decision for U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544)
`(invalidating claim to use of content-based identifiers for comparing files); Ex. F (Final Written
`Decision for U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096) (invalidating claims to use of content-based identifiers for
`storing and accessing file segments). The record developed at the PTAB confirmed the lack of
`novelty of the purported inventions of the True Name patents. The PTAB stated:
`
` The prior art disclosed creating “unique identifiers” for data items, including “using a
`binary hash algorithm” to calculate an identifier “from the content of the data instead
`of from an external or arbitrary source.” Ex. A (’791 Final Written Decision) at 15;
`see also id. at 54; Ex. D (’539 Final Written Decision) at 20 (prior art “discloses that a
`unique identifier for a file is calculated using a hash function (e.g., MD5, a
`cryptographic hash function) on the entire contents of the file, rather than the file’s
`location”).6
` The prior art disclosed using content-based identifiers, based on a hash function, to
`access data items. Ex. A (’791 Final Written Decision) at 15-16; id. at 64-65
`
`
`5 All citations to “Ex. __” are to the Declaration of Marissa A. Lalli, filed herewith.
`6 The patent claims refer variously to “hash” and “message digest” functions. As the True Name
`specification confirms, “message digest” functions (such as MD5) are a type of hash function. See,
`e.g., ’310 patent at 12:22-13:9.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(describing prior art and crediting expert opinion that “it was old and well-known to
`access records stored in a database using their identifiers”).
` The prior art disclosed using content-based identifiers, based on hash functions, to
`identify duplicate files. Ex. C (’662 Final Written Decision) at 15; Ex. A (’791 Final
`Written Decision) at 16.
` The prior art disclosed using content-based identifiers, based on a “hash of contents”
`of a data item, to “identify and request” the data item. Ex. B (’280 Final Written
`Decision) at 17.
`
`The Federal Circuit affirmed each of the PTAB decisions cited above. See Ex. G, Judgment,
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. EMC Corp. & VMware, Inc., Nos. 2014-1602, 2014-1603, 2014-1604,
`2014-1605, 2014-1606, 2014-1607 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2015).7
`Apple also filed a separate IPR challenging the ’310 patent.8 The IPR was instituted, and the
`PTAB twice issued final written decisions that the asserted claims were unpatentable. The Federal
`Circuit ultimately reversed—but not based on the novelty of the content-based identifiers per se.
`Instead, the court relied on the narrow ground that the particular prior art at issue did not sufficiently
`disclose comparing the content-based identifier to a plurality of identifiers (as opposed to a single
`identifier). PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 917 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`But the Federal Circuit acknowledged that:
`
` The prior art disclosed generating an identifier for a data item based on the contents of
`the data item. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 989 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (“Woodhill discloses a system for using content-based identifiers in performing
`file-management functions, such as backing up files. It includes a distributed storage
`system that identifies data items (called ‘binary objects’) using content-based
`identifiers (called ‘binary object identifiers’). A binary object identifier is calculated
`using the contents of a data item.” (citation omitted).).
` The prior art also disclosed using unique identifiers to control access to data items.
`See id. (“Stefik discloses an authentication system designed to control access to digital
`works stored in a repository. Each digital work is assigned a ‘unique identifier.’ Each
`digital work also has associated usage rights that control access to the work. A user
`demonstrates authorization to access a digital work through a ‘digital ticket,’ which
`
`7 Independent claim 10 of the ’280 patent was invalidated by the PTAB but claims 15 and 16 that
`depend therefrom were not at issue in the related IPR. Claims 31 and 32 were challenged in an IPR
`by Rackspace, which the PTAB instituted, but that IPR was terminated after settlement. Similarly,
`independent claim 25 of the ’662 was invalidated in an ex parte reexamination but no reexamination
`was instituted as to asserted claim 33.
`8 The ’310 patent was also challenged in IPR proceedings by Rackspace US Inc., which had been
`sued by Plaintiffs in parallel infringement actions. Although the PTAB instituted IPR proceedings
`with respect to numerous claims of the ’310 patent—including all claims asserted in this case—those
`IPRs were terminated following a settlement.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01317; 5:13-cv-01356; 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 78 Filed 11/22/19 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identifies the ticket holder as having access to the digital file because the holder has
`paid for access or is otherwise entitled to access.” (citations omitted)).
`On appeal, PersonalWeb argued that the asserted prior art did not inherently disclose comparing one
`identifier with a plurality of identifiers. See PersonalWeb, 917 F.3d at 1381.
`Because Section 101 challenges are not available in IPRs, the patent eligibility of the True
`Name patents has not yet been decided. See Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co., 921 F.3d
`1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting scope of IPR arguments).
`In sum, following the IPRs, the cases against these Defendants resumed, with the allegations
`narrowed to the following claims:
`
`’310 patent claims 24 and 31 (EMC and VMware);
`
`’310 patent claims 81, 82, and 86 (all Defendants);
`
`’280 patent claims 15 and 16 (Facebook, Google, and YouTube);
`
`’280 patent claims 31 and 32 (Facebook); and
`
`’662 patent claim 33 (Google and YouTube).
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Under Rule 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are
`closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Court should allow such a
`motion “when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true, the moving
`party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1114
`(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fajardo v. County of L.A., 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)) (internal
`quotation marks omitted). In deciding such a motion,